From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #123 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, May 12 2005 Volume 14 : Number 123 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Bob [Jeff ] Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans [HSatterfld@aol.com] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Bob [Tom Clark ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: Bands I'll never see..... [Eb ] Re: Bob [The Great Quail ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Jeff ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:59:59 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Bob On 5/12/05, Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > anybody catch robert plant on *Charlie Rose* last night? i'd never, to my > recollection, seen him interviewed before -- certainly not at length like > this. he was surprisingly eloquent (don't know why it'd be a surprise -- i > guess i just don't expect eloquence from rock stars), and ever-so pensive > ...not to mention rather leftist. Zeppelin's reputation as pussy-crazed headbangers both oversimplifies their actual music (much of which is rather more complicated, thoughtful, and just plain musical than that) and stereotypes its makers. Plus, of course, he's in his fifties rather than his twenties...probably a bit more sane these days! But I know Plant's always had his ear to the ground about new music - over the years he's surprised more than one interviewer by being into some very contemporary, hip stuff, not just old blues or rock'n'roll or whatever aging rock stars are presumed to listen to. I've never heard him interviewed or remember reading much, but he's always struck me as much more interesting than the band's image would suggest. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:18 EDT From: HSatterfld@aol.com Subject: Re: Attn. Sleater Kinney fans <> Every time I hear Sleater Kinney I just wish they sounded more like the Hazard County Girls. (_http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hazardco_ (http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hazardco) ) They can't sing either, but they are much better at hiding the fact that they can't sing. I like their CD a lot, although it is a bit repetitive I suppose. Hollie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff Dear me, it seems as if you're not Labour or LibDem you're automatically a right-wing nutter? On Thu, 12 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > Actually there's not much between the Tories and any of the other > organisations for right-wing nutters. One only needs to look at the likes > of Tebbit or Thatcher or these days, John Redwood or Anne Widdicombe...CheersMatt > > >From: Benjamin Lukoff > > > >I wonder if I were actually a Briton whether I wouldn't be voting > >Conservative, then. > > > >On Wed, 11 May 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > > > To be honest, there's not much between 'em. Both pretty racist > > > organisations, both pretty scary. The only difference is class as far > as > > > I see it - UKIP preferred right-wing nutters of the middle classes. > You > > > may have heard of Robert Kilroy Silk - he was in UKIP until the party > > > would not make him leader. I like to think that RKS is Britain's > > > most-hated celeb... > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Matt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:32:17 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Bob On May 12, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus wrote: > anybody catch robert plant on *Charlie Rose* last night? i'd never, > to my > recollection, seen him interviewed before -- certainly not at length > like > this. he was surprisingly eloquent (don't know why it'd be a surprise > -- i > guess i just don't expect eloquence from rock stars), and ever-so > pensive > ...not to mention rather leftist. > > had heard both good and lukewarm things about the new rekkid. but i'm > now > rather excited to get my ears on it. > He performed on the Letterman show a few nights ago. I wouldn't say he blew me away, but the song was better than I had expected. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Dear me, it seems as if you're not Labour or LibDem you're automatically > a right-wing nutter? No, you could be Green or Communist or probably several other things. But the Labour Party panders incessantly to the status quo, so for the most part I'd call them a conservative party and everybody to the right of that is just progressively more regressive. It's a hard thing, I suppose, for someone steeped in U.S. politics to get their head around or accept. There's almost nothing to the right of the Republican Party. Republican policies are geared toward goals almost identical to those of the Fascisti -- private corporations controlling public resources and workers subordinated to the profits of their masters. The Democratic Party is nothing but a tempering influence. They try to keep things from going too far too fast. In that sense, they're conservative as hell. Sure, there are progressive members of Congress that fly the Democrat flag, but for the most part that's populist rhetoric and doesn't translate into actual policy-making. I guess the most telling indication that the U.S.A. is controlled by a radical right-wing movement is the commonplace statement that the media has a liberal bias. That can ONLY be true if your standpoint on most issues is that of a right-wing nutter. There's so much double-think and propaganda being dumped by our racist, nationalist, privatizing ruling class that it's no wonder people are confused about where the center line lay. I mean, I heard someone call Al Franken "left-wing" the other day. It would be a flattering overstatement to call Al "left shoulder-blade", whereas Bush and his ilk are so far out on the right wing that only the tiniest strands of feather poke out further. The only difference between an American "conservative" and the jackbooted Nazi-sympathizing neo-fascists of Europe is intellectual honesty. The nuts in Europe KNOW they are racist, nationalist pawns of greed, tyranny and slavery. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:04:27 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Bands I'll never see..... >> By the way, I'm delinquent once again. I *did* see the reunited >> Undertones last Saturday, but haven't "reviewed" it. Maybe confessing >> this now will motivate me to compose some thoughts later this >> afternoon. > > I was disappointed to hear that Feargal Sharkey was not a part of the > reunion. My limited knowledge of the band tells me this is a bad > thing. > Been meaning to answer this post. Yes, it was a different singer. A guy named Paul McLoone (http://theundertones.net/pmc.jpg). And not only didn't I know about the substitution prior to the show, I didn't even know about the substitution until a few songs into the set! (I didn't recall what Feargal Sharkey looks like, so it was up to a chatmate to inform me of the switch. Lucky she was there.) But the substitute actually did quite well. Being a concert mix rather than a studio CD, the difference between the voices wasn't so obvious. And McLoone is a *really* good frontman. He's cut from the Malcolm McLaren/Gerrit Graham cloth -- charismatic adolescent snot mixed with a disarming touch of prancing queen. He was loads of fun to watch, which was good since the original members were fairly reserved. Also, as to the question of whether this really "counts" as seeing the Undertones, I'm willing to let this one slide. Mostly because everyone else was there -- the two brothers have scarcely aged at all -- and because Sharkey contributed so very, very little to the Undertones' songwriting. I actually flipped through my CDs the next day, and I believe Sharkey's entire writing contribution to the band's catalog was two *co*-writing credits. They played all the songs you would want to hear, and it was a good-sized set. Listening to "Girls Don't Like It" (both at the show, and on CD during the drive south), I was struck at how easily this could be a Fiery Furnaces song. ;) The show was at the ever-lame Galaxy Theatre in Santa Ana (http://www.galaxytheatre.com), and was only about my sixth time there *ever*. Except for the time I saw Beck there (just prior to the Odelay explosion), every show I've ever seen there has been so badly attended that the life was sucked out of the music. Mind you, this is the same venue where I saw the infamous Bandit Queen show where I was literally the only person paying active attention to the set (while a few scattered middle-class couples finished dinner above). Anyway, *this* gig was refreshingly stuffed, though I think it had less to do with the Undertones and more to do with the four younger punk bands who opened. I arrived late enough to skip most of these, but did see about half of the Epoxies' set. Not too bad. Cute girl singer who could actually *dance* -- imagine that. Too much stage smoke, though. Robyn's unnamed publicist chum was there, as was former Wednesday Week singer Kristi Callan. Kinda poetic to see *her* there, for obvious reasons. Fun to see her bobbing up and down when the band finally played "her" song.... Eb now finding repetitive and dull: Explosions in the Sky ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:07:00 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Bob > But I know Plant's > always had his ear to the ground about new music - One of my most surreal concert-going experiences was when I saw the reconstituted Led Zeppelin in the 90s and they plated the Cure's "Lullaby." - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:37:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Dear me, it seems as if you're not Labour or LibDem you're automatically > > a right-wing nutter? > > No, you could be Green or Communist or probably several other things. Well, I'm certainly not that. > I guess the most telling indication that the U.S.A. is controlled by a > radical right-wing movement is the commonplace statement that the media > has a liberal bias. That can ONLY be true if your standpoint on most > issues is that of a right-wing nutter. How many people really believe that, though? I certainly don't see a liberal bias in the media. > The only difference between an American "conservative" and the jackbooted > Nazi-sympathizing neo-fascists of Europe is intellectual honesty. The > nuts in Europe KNOW they are racist, nationalist pawns of greed, tyranny > and slavery. So I'm confused now. In *American* terms, I'd say I'm moderate/moderate-right economically and far-left on issues of personal freedom. What does that translate to in your world? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:02:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > How many people really believe that, though? I certainly don't see a > liberal bias in the media. I have to rebutt that statement all the time. It's oft-repeated. I can't tell you how many of the people that use the statement really BELIEVE it, though. I'd like to believe it's all of them, but I'm generous that way. >> The only difference between an American "conservative" and the >> jackbooted Nazi-sympathizing neo-fascists of Europe is intellectual >> honesty. The nuts in Europe KNOW they are racist, nationalist pawns of >> greed, tyranny and slavery. > > So I'm confused now. In *American* terms, I'd say I'm > moderate/moderate-right economically and far-left on issues of personal > freedom. What does that translate to in your world? Well, I think you're just flatting yourself when you say you're "far-left" on anything, really. You want to believe you're some kind of rational moderate (which is what pretty much everyone believes and that is why the entire political spectrum has to be shifted right in order for the right to hold control in a place like the U.S.A) who picks and chooses from dogmatic belief systems (which are clearly too rigid and not internally consistent) to form your coherent view. But I don't believe that's the case... at least not if you'd call yourself Libertarian. Support for post-industrial market capitalism, for example, requires a far-right stance on issues of personal freedom. The far-left would never put oppressive behavior such as claiming dominion over property in absentia, exploiting the labor of those compelled to work by threat of poverty or violence, or robbing future generations (and current generations of underprivileged people and species) of our planet's resources into the category of "personal freedom", yet they are all requirements of our economy. Supporting the economic system (i.e., being "moderate/moderate-right economically) is de facto right/far-right on issues of personal freedom. So, yeah... right-wing nutter. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > Supporting the economic system (i.e., being > "moderate/moderate-right economically) is de facto right/far-right on > issues of personal freedom. I disagree, but you probably expected that. > So, yeah... right-wing nutter. Oh well, I can see this isn't going anywhere (left-wing nutter). I am *so* not a right-wing nutter in the generally accepted sense of the phrase that I can only imagine the horror with which you must regard TRUE right-wing nutters. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Tue, 10 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: >>> Maximum wage? Cap everyone's potential earnings? I don't see how >>> that's fair, >> >> What the fuck does "fair" mean in this context? > > I don't see why the government has the right to put an upper limit on my > income. The government establishes, regulates, and perpetuates the economic system. It creates the infrastructure within which you acquire an income. Hell, it constructed the system by which you REQUIRE an income. Furthermore, every economic interaction requires the use of public resources that are either gifted or loaned to private parties for use in economic transactions. The people have the right to modify the conditions under which those private parties can use the public resources and, if necessary, recall the resources back into the public trust. > What would be fair--financiers in jail and muralist millionaires? You missed the point. Until there's a definition that makes any sense at all, you can't really use the word "fair". >> Does it have something to do with reaping the fruits of your labor? > > Certainly--not being able to do so is a major failing of socialism. That's just absurd. The entire basis for socialism is a shared and equitable access to the fruits of the people's labor. If anything, the modern American economic system is the one you describe when you bitch about "socialism" (and it's not socialist in any way that matters to a working person). Let's say I build luxury yachts. I do so for some manufacturing firm that pays me a wage (as little as possible, of course). That wage is not enough to buy a luxury yacht and, in that sense, I will NEVER reap the fruits of my labor. However, the rich men who own the manufacturing firm give me coupons that I can redeem for goods and services including housing, food, and clothing. Isn't that exactly the system you decried as being incapable of sustaining itself because people lose their drive to work? > And so we shouldn't try to be fair, either? Reread the next bit you quoted. We can't try to be something that is not well-defined. >> "Fair" is an ill-conceived concept and should be tossed out of the >> lexicon along with "earn" and "deserve". > > Who is going to want to work for a monthly coupon for the state? See the example above. Personally, I HATE the notion of working for monthly coupons. I much prefer a system by which people work because they love doing what they do (or the shit just needs to get done and somebody's got to do it -- sort of like how the dishes are washed at my house) and the exchange of goods and services is mediated by good will and respect. But you're not supporting that, either. >>> especially as that will push employers even further toward reducing >>> actual salary in favor of "equity-based compensation." >> >> Holy crap... you mean making people partners in the organizations for >> which they labor? > > I'm all for stock-based compensation, myself, but I doubt the average > Safeway checker would want a salary cut (partially) made up for by a > stock grant. Keep your context in mind, sir. The average Safeway checker is in absolutely NO danger of hitting an income cap like the ones proposed. > And remember all those people with stock in their employers Enron, > WorldCom, and Global Crossing? And where's everyone's pension now anyway? And why wasn't Microsoft broken up? Clearly the current system of stocks and stock trading is fucked. And common stock is really nothing like actual equity in the organization. You can't cash it in for your share... you can only convince someone else to buy it. Personally, I think equity in a private organization should be limited to those who work within the organization. Absentee ownership is not only unnatural and fictitious, it's hurtful. > You'd hear people screaming bloody murder if all companies started > slashing salaries and handing out stock. That's probably true. But that's not at all related to the policy changes proposed in this thread. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: >> Supporting the economic system (i.e., being "moderate/moderate-right >> economically) is de facto right/far-right on issues of personal >> freedom. > > I disagree, but you probably expected that. Yes, but do you have any justification for that disagreement or do you just continue to believe against evidence in order to maintain that reassuring belief that you are a sensible moderate in a world of dogmatic extremists? It's just fine to think I'm wrong, but unless you know why and can express it, you really have no reason to believe you're right. >> So, yeah... right-wing nutter. > > Oh well, I can see this isn't going anywhere (left-wing nutter). Sure. I mean, it can't very well go anywhere when you just stop dead. > I am *so* not a right-wing nutter in the generally accepted sense of the > phrase that I can only imagine the horror with which you must regard > TRUE right-wing nutters. Again, I think the only difference is intellectual honesty. And I hold intellectual honesty in high regard. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:42:05 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: election stuff On 5/12/05, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > >> Supporting the economic system (i.e., being "moderate/moderate-right > >> economically) is de facto right/far-right on issues of personal > >> freedom. > It's just fine to think I'm wrong, but unless you know why and can express > it, you really have no reason to believe you're right. > > >> So, yeah... right-wing nutter. > > > > Oh well, I can see this isn't going anywhere (left-wing nutter). > > > I am *so* not a right-wing nutter in the generally accepted sense of the > > phrase that I can only imagine the horror with which you must regard > > TRUE right-wing nutters. > > Again, I think the only difference is intellectual honesty. Okay, perhaps if drop the non-descriptive but heavily weighted and accusatory word "nutter" from this, will it make better sense? To me, the axis along which left/right is defined is primarily economic, and "right" is the direction toward which economic values (and those who hold economic power) are given increasing weight, whereas "left" is the direction toward which extra-economic values are given increasing standing, explicitly in counterdistinction to economic values because, in the left view, many essential values will not be met within a wholly economics-rooted framework. So: if you accept the essential sociopolitical framework of the US, which clearly values economic values over nearly everything else (if it doesn't make a buck fuck it), then you are, along this axis, right-wing. The political mainstream in the US certainly is right-wing. The bullshit about social issues (i.e., the extent to which you believe some God cares what you do with your genitalia and other pleasure-making aspects of your mind and body - correction: what *everyone else* does with their genitalia) is smokescreen and irrelevant to what right and left actually mean. What I don't understand about libertarianism is that those folks get extremely up in arms at what they perceive as government interference with their right to be let alone - but somehow, corporate interference with the same is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders. Of course, that's probably because the right wing has largely persuaded society that its version of economics is, in fact, engraved on stone tablets brought down from some mountain, and if not scribed by God Himself certainly is written in the hand of natural law, like gravity or the weather. The irony is that certain basic tenets of that economics are transparently false: its dependence upon "rational actors" for example. Is it rational or beneficial to pay twice as much for the same pair of jeans because someone slaps a label on 'em? The usual argument there is that "prestige" is a (rationally) sought-after category...but throwing such intangible, and largely emotional, factors into the mix of "rationality" might as well argue that it's "rational" to invest in companies who claim to make things out of unicorn horns - so long as a lot of people think it's a good idea. (Of course, there might be a short-term gain there - but in the long-term?) Or another problem with the "rational actor" thing: the modern world is full of unknowable factors that no reason can discern. Consider this article, for instance: http://www.shepherd-express.com/5_4_05/cover.htm. Because of the complex interaction of the chemicals in cosmetics, and because many of their effects are extremely long-term and difficult to isolate as being caused by any of them in particular or in combination, there is simply no way for the average citizen, no matter how "rational", to evaluate whether these products make sense as purchase or investment. Worse (as the article points out) most people simply assume that government is on their side and has investigated and certified these products as safe - and so they calculate on that (mistaken) basis. People are, in general, irrational and poorly informed. (It doesn't help that both qualities are reinforced repeatedly by the powers-that-be...) Fortunately, cosmetics are an optional product. What of more essential products, similarly configured, with similar effects? The argument ultimately is that we cannot afford to let "the market" sort out which products are safe and which are not - unless, that is, we're willing to use the infamous LD50 criterion on human beings - but even there we'd have no way of knowing *what* killed them specifically. Research is essential, but it must be sponsored and managed by a neutral party, not by invested manufacturers. Who but a government has the power, the neutrality (in theory), and the constituency to do this? - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > Furthermore, every economic interaction requires the use of public > resources that are either gifted or loaned to private parties for use in > economic transactions. The people have the right to modify the conditions > under which those private parties can use the public resources and, if > necessary, recall the resources back into the public trust. Unfortunately, the government is not the people, and the people are not the government. I *might* trust the people--I really have my doubts about giving the government more power. > That's just absurd. The entire basis for socialism is a shared and > equitable access to the fruits of the people's labor. Who decides what's equitable? > Let's say I build luxury yachts. I do so for some manufacturing firm that > pays me a wage (as little as possible, of course). That wage is not > enough to buy a luxury yacht and, in that sense, I will NEVER reap the > fruits of my labor. However, the rich men who own the manufacturing firm Yeah, in *that* sense, but that's not the sense I mean. You will reap the fruits of your labor, in terms of your wages. You might deserve more, but maybe you'll have to do something other than build yachts to do so. > give me coupons that I can redeem for goods and services including > housing, food, and clothing. Clothing, housing, and food broadly of your choice. > Isn't that exactly the system you decried as being incapable of sustaining > itself because people lose their drive to work? No > Personally, I HATE the notion of working for monthly coupons. I much > prefer a system by which people work because they love doing what they do > (or the shit just needs to get done and somebody's got to do it -- sort of > like how the dishes are washed at my house) and the exchange of goods and > services is mediated by good will and respect. But you're not supporting > that, either. I don't think such a system is POSSIBLE. It might very well be the best thing, if it were workable. > > I'm all for stock-based compensation, myself, but I doubt the average > > Safeway checker would want a salary cut (partially) made up for by a > > stock grant. > > Keep your context in mind, sir. The average Safeway checker is in > absolutely NO danger of hitting an income cap like the ones proposed. I didn't say he or she was. > > And remember all those people with stock in their employers Enron, > > WorldCom, and Global Crossing? > > And where's everyone's pension now anyway? And why wasn't Microsoft Mine's fine, because it's invested in the broad market, not in my company's stock. > Personally, I think equity in a private organization should be limited to > those who work within the organization. Absentee ownership is not only > unnatural and fictitious, it's hurtful. See, this is where I completely disagree with you, and since we can't agree on whether absentee ownership and basic property rights are proper or not, we're not going to agree on anything else, either. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:26:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > >> So, yeah... right-wing nutter. > > > > Oh well, I can see this isn't going anywhere (left-wing nutter). > > Sure. I mean, it can't very well go anywhere when you just stop dead. Why argue with someone who thinks you're a nutter? > > I am *so* not a right-wing nutter in the generally accepted sense of the > > phrase that I can only imagine the horror with which you must regard > > TRUE right-wing nutters. > > Again, I think the only difference is intellectual honesty. > > And I hold intellectual honesty in high regard. thank you for calling me intellectually dishonest. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:35:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Jeff wrote: > To me, the axis along which left/right is defined is primarily > economic, and "right" is the direction toward which economic values > (and those who hold economic power) are given increasing weight, > whereas "left" is the direction toward which extra-economic values are > given increasing standing, explicitly in counterdistinction to > economic values because, in the left view, many essential values will > not be met within a wholly economics-rooted framework. OK, but some will maintain economic values and extra-economic values go hand in hand. > So: if you accept the essential sociopolitical framework of the US, > which clearly values economic values over nearly everything else (if > it doesn't make a buck fuck it), then you are, along this axis, > right-wing. The political mainstream in the US certainly is > right-wing. By THIS definition I'm right-wing, I suppose, but I don't think that's the popular definition. > The bullshit about social issues (i.e., the extent to which you > believe some God cares what you do with your genitalia and other > pleasure-making aspects of your mind and body - correction: what > *everyone else* does with their genitalia) is smokescreen and > irrelevant to what right and left actually mean. Fine then, but of course social issues aren't bullshit and they make up an important part of one's political identity. In fact, social issues are why, though according to people here I'm right-wing, I tend to vote for the Democrats, not the Republicans. > What I don't understand about libertarianism is that those folks get > extremely up in arms at what they perceive as government interference > with their right to be let alone - but somehow, corporate interference > with the same is accepted with a shrug of the shoulders. Of course, > that's probably because the right wing has largely persuaded society > that its version of economics is, in fact, engraved on stone tablets > brought down from some mountain, and if not scribed by God Himself > certainly is written in the hand of natural law, like gravity or the > weather. I won't speak for others, but your supposition is incorrect. I don't like corporate INTERFERENCE either. But should we damn capitalism for the misdeeds of people like those at Enron and WorldCom? > The irony is that certain basic tenets of that economics are > transparently false: its dependence upon "rational actors" for > example. Is it rational or beneficial to pay twice as much for the > same pair of jeans because someone slaps a label on 'em? The usual > argument there is that "prestige" is a (rationally) sought-after > category...but throwing such intangible, and largely emotional, > factors into the mix of "rationality" might as well argue that it's > "rational" to invest in companies who claim to make things out of > unicorn horns - so long as a lot of people think it's a good idea. (Of > course, there might be a short-term gain there - but in the > long-term?) Lesson: don't buy and hold unicorn-horn processors, flip 'em quickly. > Fortunately, cosmetics are an optional product. What of more essential > products, similarly configured, with similar effects? The argument > ultimately is that we cannot afford to let "the market" sort out which > products are safe and which are not - unless, that is, we're willing > to use the infamous LD50 criterion on human beings - but even there > we'd have no way of knowing *what* killed them specifically. Research > is essential, but it must be sponsored and managed by a neutral party, > not by invested manufacturers. Who but a government has the power, the > neutrality (in theory), and the constituency to do this? I have absolutely no problem with government getting involved in things like this. In fact, I feel misrepresented. I'm all for government getting involved in things like (reasonable) regulation, setting standards of weights and measures, etc. Translated: I'm not a nutter, libertarian, Republican, or otherwise. I am proud to live in a city with a publicly owned water, transit, and power system. I have fought against turning over public street rights-of-way to private owners. I love public ownership...of SOME things. I don't think our current system is perfect. Neither do I want to see the US go socialist. Again, who's going to be making the decisions here, and on what basis? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #123 ********************************